Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I know that the affirmative can straight turn a DA by either:

  • Using the link (i.e. non-uniqueness + link turn)
  • Using the impact (i.e. impact take-out + impact turn)

But as negative, how can you get out of the straight turn? The negative has to go for the straight turn, but is there any chance and/or way of winning the argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer it the same way as any other argument. Mitigate risk, possibly turn the turn, show why your DA outweighs the turn (timeframe, magnitude, probability).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright thanks.

 

Just to clarify though, in what speech should the straight turn be made? (Aka should it be in the 2AC, or should the 2AC answer the line by line and save the straight turn for the 1AR)? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright thanks.

 

Just to clarify though, in what speech should the straight turn be made? (Aka should it be in the 2AC, or should the 2AC answer the line by line and save the straight turn for the 1AR)? 

2ac unless it is in response to a new arg made in the block.  If its not in response to a new block arg or in the 2ac, judges may perceive it as a new arg in the 1ar

 

Edit: the components for the turn should be in the 2ac, not new in the 1ar

Edited by MCat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2ac unless it is in response to a new arg made in the block.  If its not in response to a new block arg or in the 2ac, judges may perceive it as a new arg in the 1ar

I mean this is partially true. Most often, however, the 1ar will straight turn but the 2ac will not. For instance, 1nc reads a politics da (pc internal link, econ impact). The 2ac might say bill won't pass, plan popular, winners win, pc not true, no impact to econ collapse. This isn't a straight turn because the neg can concede defense (either of the last two). Let's say the block extends this disad and answers every argument. The 1ar now has the choice of which arguments to extend. They very well might only extend the offense (won't pass, plan popular, winners win). If this is the case, the 2nr must go for this da (or answer the link turn and go for another da)

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's way more strategic to straight-turn in the 1AR in almost every case. Straight-turning in the 2AC shows your hand too early and allows the block to exploit it; they could spend a lot of time reading new impact scenarios for the disadvantage, for instance, if you straight-turn in the 2AC, and the 1AR will be very hard-pressed to prove the case outweighs all of these scenarios and read impact defense on all of the ones that don't internal-link into the advantage.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Go for the K

2) Go for T

3) Go for Theory

 

No really:

1) You limit the DAs you have to be ready for this via the counterplan

2) Have lots of good impacts

3) otherwise counterplan out of the impacts

4) Impact comparison on the other DAs

 

Link turns:

1) your link turns should always account for the link turn debates

2) time frame of the link turn vs. the link

3) impact uniqueness

4) link uniqueness

5) counterplan for uniqueness

 

Being ready for predictable link & impact turns.  It takes 30 seconds to a minute to write a block.  It takes about 3 to 5 minutes to write a pretty good block--say for a K.

That time is well invested.

 

Once you've done it for one of your positions....it gets far, far, far easier to do it for the others.

 

I've provided a lot of counterplan type advice above.  Pick one or two foundational strategies.

 

BTW, you have the block, you shouldn't get impact turned such that you lose those debates.

Econ & hege & prolif debates work out in pretty predictable ways.

 

I advise running your uniqueness counterplan out of the 1N for ease on the theory debate--assuming you don't have another counterplan that fulfills the same function.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then it's a new arg in the 1AR

 

No, it's the extension of particular 2AC arguments in such a way that forces the 2NR's hand. No new arguments, just some are purposely conceded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then it's a new arg in the 1AR

Dan hit it on the head, and most judges are willing to spot 1ARs some leeway when the block reads any new stuff (which it always does). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...